Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.4.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will do the same as Mr Verhofstadt: I will use all my speaking time at once.
Where is the Commission’s initiative and Europe’s initiative to intervene so that, through integrating Turkey, we put an end to this ridiculous debate which is costing the Greek people billions for absolutely nothing, because Greece is buying back arms which France and Germany do not need for their own armies. This is very intelligent! This is my example, Mr Barroso, of the non-intervention of your Commission.
I can give you a second example, which was provided by Mr Verhofstadt. Today, what is happening with the Roma is a test of the credibility of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which forms part of the Treaty of Lisbon. To put it in a moral and philosophical way, I quote Albert Camus: ‘Democracy is about defending minorities, not simply executing the will of majorities’.
Is the Commission waiting? Does it have a report in its filing cabinet? Say it publicly: what France is doing contravenes the European treaties. It really is simple to say it and to make it known.
I will give you another example of what you are not saying. You spoke of the economy, unemployment and growth. You did not say a word about the change that needs to be made to the nature of growth. You did not say that the ecological catastrophe and climate change obliged us to reinterpret our notion of growth. There was nothing on that.
You did not talk about Cancún. We have three months until Cancún. There was not a word on the fact that if we want to be credible on climate change, we must return to a 30% target for reduction in CO
and we must be at the forefront of the debate on climate change. On that, Mr President, you are conspicuously silent.
As a result of this, I would like to say that you are the absent president of a Europe which needs a president. That is our problem, and that is the situation of the Union.
I would like to conclude by saying one thing to you. You spoke, for example, of European investment. You can look at the time; I have three more minutes. I know it is annoying, but that is life. I wanted to say one thing to you: take things seriously. Forty per cent of CO
production in Europe is due to buildings. Use your European resources to create a European energy fund; give European cities the opportunity to renovate buildings throughout Europe by creating a European Keynes fund in Europe, because the national states are not capable of doing it.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Mr Schulz and Mr Verhofstadt have pointed out the fundamental difficulty of our situation, and I regret that you have not had the clear-headedness or truthfulness to point it out.
That is basically my message. There is a great debate in Europe about whether we need public investment. I would say to you, Mr Barroso: put Keynes in Brussels. Public investment today must be European investment in the ecological transformation of our economy. Do you understand this, Mr Barroso? If so, I hope that, in the next discussion about Europe, you will show that you have understood that we are no longer in the 1970s, but today we face a financial crisis and an ecological crisis.
To conclude, I will give you a figure which we must all reflect on. The losses due to the crisis are reaching EUR 50 000 billion. This is equivalent to five centuries of public investment in development aid. That would build 10 billion schools in the African countries. That is the situation the world finds itself in, Mr Barroso.
Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, there has been a battle concerning the interpretation of the treaty. I believe that most governments had not read it, and, once it was introduced, they discovered that the Treaty of Lisbon was actually a means and an instrument for the communitisation of European policies. In all the discussions, the battle which is taking place – we have seen it on foreign services, we have seen it on the situation of financial regulation – always gets to the same point. The question at issue is – and it has already been said – are we moving towards an intergovernmental Europe or a strengthening of the Community-based Europe? This is precisely the situation of the Union today.
What I dream of is that the Commission will make a public declaration. In the European institutions at the moment, there is a political battle, and this political battle is about the interpretation of the Treaty of Lisbon, and that has consequences for European policies. The European citizens must know what we know and what we feel in the interinstitutional debates. On that, Mr Barroso, you have said nothing.
With that, I come to my second point. This Commission, in its general statements, is the champion of Europe. They are very beautiful statements. However, when it comes to pointing the finger, describing a situation affecting a Member State, naming someone or a government by name, you are conspicuously silent. You do not exist. I can give you a whole host of examples.
Let me come back to Greece. Everyone knows that you were losing control of the situation in Greece; indeed, you knew two or three years before the crisis – you had reports on it in your filing cabinet. There was no official statement. You went to church and prayed, and you believed that if you prayed, everything in Greece would sort itself out. It has not sorted itself out. Afterwards, you supported – and we supported by a majority – applying unbelievable pressure on Greece, and on the Greek people, who made just as many mistakes as the Greek elites.
However, at the moment, Mr Barroso, while we are putting this pressure on the Greek people in order to resolve the problem, I have not heard you talk about the fact that now, in August, there have been negotiations between the Greek Government and the large French and German arms companies on continuing arms sales by European businesses to Greece.
We have all gone completely mad, as I have said three or four times, but will we act? Do you know how much money Greece has spent on arms these past ten years? What is the figure? EUR 50 billion in ten years! Mr Barroso, you knew this. One of the problems these countries have is precisely this structure, which is related to a European problem of nationalism and the battle or debate between Greece and Turkey."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples